An ongoing review of politics and culture

There’s no easy fix here — as much as I dig handguns and think that Heller was properly decided, I don’t think doling out concealed-carry permits is the solution. More police would be nice, but they won’t make any difference without a better policing strategy. The community breeding these problems should be aided, but pouring good money after bad hasn’t gotten us anything so far. So what do we do? Wait until gentrification has pushed the poorest elements into the outer suburbs? Throw every violent criminal ages 13 and up into the big house for 20 years? Wait until vigilante groups roam the street protecting law-abiding citizens from the baser portions of humanity? What. Do. We. Do?

There’s also a fascinating related discussion going on over at Ta-Nahisi Coates’ (excellent) blog.

I recently moved into a wonderful neighborhood in the city. I love it, really — it’s beautiful, for one thing, and unpretentious and convenient for most everything I do. Within the confines its relatively narrow boundaries, crime isn’t too bad, at least by DC standards. But it’s also the sort of neighborhood which will get a Post profile largely dedicated to ruminating on its checkered recent past. (Sample quotes: “The first month we moved in, we were breaking up a mugging.” “People used to get shot. People used to sell drugs. Places used to get robbed.”) And it’s a neighborhood just a few blocks away from an area the City Paper found worthy of writing up for its ongoing drug-related gang warfare. If you want to live in DC, especially if you want to live near food and entertainment and nightlife, this is pretty common.

I don’t have any grand solutions (or at least none which are politically feasible, ie: we’re not likely to see massive shifts in drug policy), and I haven’t come across anyone who does. Economic development will help transform the city; it already has. Violent crime, especially murder, will go down, at least in rapidly developing areas. On the other hand, an increase in relatively wealthy city-dwellers will, in many cases, increase some types of crime, especially during transition periods: It brings in a host of affluent targets.

The only semi-small bore policy change I’d suggest is to consider increasing public transportation options and focusing on building walkable communities. As Sonny notes, streets at least feel a lot safer when they’re well lit and busy. I know I won’t walk home after dark, despite the relative safety of my neighborhood, and one of the reasons why is that there just aren’t enough people on the streets. Putting more people in cars might make people safer in some respects, but encouraging car culture just isn’t feasible in this jam-packed city. So why not try to solve two problems at once: Increase the public transportation infrastructure, especially with regards to rail, and not only will you see an impact on traffic, you’ll also see more people choosing to go without cars and, instead, stroll the streets — which will, over time, hopefully make them safer.

Leave a Reply

Aldo, I read that. And Roissy recently put together a map of Section 8 housing in DC (not surprisingly, there’s a cluster around Adams Morgan and Columbia Heights). But I’m not quite sure if that piece provides a roadmap for a place like DC — it’s mostly concerned with an uptick in crime outside the city core. So while it might be useful when looking at the DC suburbs in VA and MD, I’m not sure it’s quite as instructive for looking at the city’s downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods.

What about a shift in policing priorities? Didn’t Denver vote on a referendum to de-prioritize drug enforcement in favor of other anti-crime operations? Would that be politically feasible in DC? Is there even a mechanism for introducing a city-wide referendum on law enforcement issues?

I consider myself a “small l” libertarian, and I have been opposed to the drug war since the beginning. I have some personal experience with these issues, though, and in some ways I have had to attenuate my political positions based on that experience. A lot (maybe most) of inner city crime is associated with the use and sales of certain illegal drugs, such as Crystal Meth. So, focusing on crime but not Meth (for example) is almost a distinction without a difference. When the officer on a beat pulls over the car of a known tweaker he very much IS focused on crime.

I think a lot of people who came of age in the 60’s and 70’s tend to associate drug enforcement with chasing potheads. If that was still true I would be all for telling the cops to focus elsewhere, but in 2008 the cops are dealing with drugs like Meth and crack that are far more destructive, and more closely linked to inner city problems than the recreational drugs of earlier eras.

My understanding of the Denver ordinance was that it mandated law enforcement officers prioritize other crimes over marijuana possession enforcement. It didn’t have anything to do with “harder drugs” like crystal meth. (here’s a quick reference – http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/denver-officials-ignore-marijuana-votes/)

To be honest, I don’t think this should be a discussion about the efficacy of the “War on Drugs.” From a municipal standpoint, we can’t do much about the country’s broader enforcement policies, but I do think we can deploy local resources more effectively. I’m not terribly familiar with the proximate causes of urban crime, but I’m not sure why we should treat meth-induced assault or robbery any differently than we do greed-induced assault or robbery. In other words, it’s easier (and more effective) to treat the criminal symptoms of urban poverty, greed, and drug use through uniform criminal enforcement rather than vain attempts to get at the “root problems.” By freeing up more police resources for street patrols and investigation, de-prioritizing possession charges would be a step in the right direction that seems eminently feasible.